Anyone using any new Intel quad cores (duos or new Quad Xeons) or AMD's for that matter with any audio apps yet? If so which ones and what host apps? Benchmarks have been done with amds and intels as well, and I plan to post these at some point, but wanted to hear general info if anyone wanted to post anything that would be great. Or if any mac users had any info too that would be great, but I dont know if they will look in here, maybe I will go check the apple section too Thanks

Anyone using any new Intel quad cores (duos or new Quad Xeons) or AMD's for that matter with any audio apps yet?

No but I've got to update my DAW sometime next year and I'd be glad to hear that kind of stuff too._________________The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy Bentham

I think you would be unwise not to look at an Intel Mac running Logic Audio 8

Well I have all that Windows DAWA/Audio software that I absolutely love, and you are the one allways bitching about computers, while I say I love them, so why on earth would I want to change? _________________The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy Bentham

Well I have all that Windows DAWA/Audio software that I absolutely love, and you are the one allways bitching about computers, while I say I love them, so why on earth would I want to change?

Funniest point in these debates so far. Let's wait to see if Tom can find a quote by you stating we should all go live in the countryside without electricity, I seem to remember some existed. :¬)

Tom, in this multi OS setup, I assume XP runs virtualised? So you can patch signals into and out of the virtualised soundcard? Or does it get to own some of the outputs on the hardware card? Or both?

Personally I'm not so sure about this multi-core direction, I'd much rather have a 6GHz CPU then 4 2GHz ones. Realtime modular stuff without block-processing may well be the very worst type of thing to run on multi-core setups but that just happens to be the one thing I'm most interested in. Dual cores are ok so the OS can be on one and the application on the other but beyond that I don't think I could get any use from it._________________Kassen

Kas -- I'd agree if you were strictly mono, but if you use polyphony, or some similar structure to, say, the Nord Modulars (poly section, one mono section, multi-timbre/slots, etc), that lends itself to multiple threads, then multiple processors is the way to go.

That's true for the way the NM's implement polyphony but I already pointed out many times I don't see that as being "modular" at all. It means nothing like sympathetic resonance or other forms of inter-voice communication can be done. Another issue is that the NM's take time to sort out this optimisation. The NM's, in my opinion, aren't real modular synths, they are poly synths with a modular voice architecture.

It's all good and well if you know ahead of time how your setup needs to be structured, for example if you are playing known sheet music with off-the-shelf instruments but if you need a system that can be completely and arbitrarily reconfigured while running multi-cores are no more exciting then single cores of the same speed with the exception of stuffing the OS in one of the cores.

Of course most people are perfectly fine with that and multi cores are likely a good idea anyway because at this rate we'll soon need a 32 core 2GHz system with OSXP taking 31 of them! ;¬)_________________Kassen

To illustrate why I don't think inter-voice communication is far-fetched;

Say you have a traditional keyboard with 4 voices doing a "trumpet" sound. At that point you are basically emulating a small copper section of instrumentalists *who can't hear eachother*..... Let's go ask people who play in big-bands whether they think that's a good idea :¬)._________________Kassen

Let's wait to see if Tom can find a quote by you stating we should all go live in the countryside without electricity, I seem to remember some existed. :¬)

Bet no such posts exist. Not like me at all. I refuse to live without hot and cold running water--at least._________________The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy Bentham

That's true for the way the NM's implement polyphony but I already pointed out many times I don't see that as being "modular" at all. It means nothing like sympathetic resonance or other forms of inter-voice communication can be done. Another issue is that the NM's take time to sort out this optimisation. The NM's, in my opinion, aren't real modular synths, they are poly synths with a modular voice architecture.

It's all good and well if you know ahead of time how your setup needs to be structured, for example if you are playing known sheet music with off-the-shelf instruments but if you need a system that can be completely and arbitrarily reconfigured while running multi-cores are no more exciting then single cores of the same speed with the exception of stuffing the OS in one of the cores.

Of course most people are perfectly fine with that and multi cores are likely a good idea anyway because at this rate we'll soon need a 32 core 2GHz system with OSXP taking 31 of them! ;¬)

Point taken. Dynamic systems are a bit beyond the threading capabilities of most software, and attempts at it really fucks with the real time nature of things, as you know. I've always thought it'd be lovely to have the OS timer in hardware, with context switching and what not done my some system "monitor" (ie-the OS itself) that runs in it's own dedicated processor with it's own dedicated memory (no crashing!). Something like this coulduse a tiny 60MHz processor to run windows, with your apps getting all the real juice.

Hmmmm...maybe this would be possible, running Linux on one processor, then use virtualization, that instead of wrapping a program in a software isolation tank, just run it in it's own dedicated hardware. From the OS's perspective, it'd be the same. That'd be great for realtime media.

Hmmmm...maybe this would be possible, running Linux on one processor, then use virtualization, that instead of wrapping a program in a software isolation tank, just run it in it's own dedicated hardware. From the OS's perspective, it'd be the same. That'd be great for realtime media.

Now we're getting somewhere memory prices are not too bad either, so give each application processor plenty of that as well - they'd only have to fight over the IO then.

Our discussion relates to how you break up a process (calculating voice information) into multiple processors efficiently, without adding much overhead of how module 1 passes data to module 2, that may be calculated by 2 different processors. There has to be overhead, since the two processors aren't in perfect sync to *know* that data is ready from module 1, and module 2 is ready to take it. So, they have to tell each other that, hence extra computation and memory access time, that's not used to actually calculate audio. If everything is on one single processor, the flow of software, in the fact it does one thing at a time, takes care of when data is ready from what module, you simply calculate module 1 first, then module 2. That's why Kassen would prefer a 6GHz single processor over 2x 3 GHz processors.

However, that assumes that the gain in cache hits and more efficient memory management for two processors would be less than the over head of task management that is required to support multiple processors. I don't know if that's actually true or not.

I think you would be unwise not to look at an Intel Mac running Logic Audio 8

Well I have all that Windows DAWA/Audio software that I absolutely love, and you are the one allways bitching about computers, while I say I love them, so why on earth would I want to change?

Well if you love them so much why do you want to update them then? You asked a simple question and I answered it!

I bitch about Windows because I have to (actually I am forced!) use it every day, and I really despise Windows. I would have loved to have done my course on a Unix machine running Unix software, but I am told that Microsoft is the 'industry standard'. Well that might be the case for big corporate industries, but I've always been attracted to small companies doing other, more interesting things, and if I can recommend that a Linux or Mac system is a better way to go than a Windows based PC, I will. _________________ACHTUNG!
ALLES TURISTEN UND NONTEKNISCHEN LOOKENPEEPERS!
DAS KOMPUTERMASCHINE IST NICHT FÜR DER GEFINGERPOKEN UND MITTENGRABEN! ODERWISE IST EASY TO SCHNAPPEN DER SPRINGENWERK, BLOWENFUSEN UND POPPENCORKEN MIT SPITZENSPARKSEN.
IST NICHT FÜR GEWERKEN BEI DUMMKOPFEN. DER RUBBERNECKEN SIGHTSEEREN KEEPEN DAS COTTONPICKEN HÄNDER IN DAS POCKETS MUSS.
ZO RELAXEN UND WATSCHEN DER BLINKENLICHTEN.

However, that assumes that the gain in cache hits and more efficient memory management for two processors would be less than the over head of task management that is required to support multiple processors. I don't know if that's actually true or not.

I think everybody would take 6 over 2x3 (with overhead being what it is), I meant I'd take 6 over 4x3, that's a bit stronger as a statement. I dunno if multi cores go up to 3GHz yet so I took the safe bet and said 2. I'd get more performance out of 6GHz then out of 4x3.

It's mostly hypothetical as I don't think Intell will be giving us 6GHz cpu's any time soon. It's also a bit sad that the program I have that eats most CPU (a homebrew reverb for positioned sound, takes around half a minute per second of sound in my last tests on a 2GHz pentium mobile) would actually be extremely well suited for multi-threading.... but ChucK doesn't know that :¬).

It all kinda depends on how intertwined the bits of the program are but that also means the compiler has to sort out how intertwined it is which is non-trivial and might give a severe hit when we have a program that can be reconfigured on the go. For example the NM's have a gap in the sound that's way longer then a single sample while it re-optimises what CPU does what but I think that process doesn't happen on the DSP CPU's itself._________________Kassen

Very interesting.
You all bring up some points I had not considered upon beginning this thread which is really cool. My main goals are as follows in regards to
multi-core use in the upcoming years:

I want host apps to be optimized for such, namely for plugin use.
Specifically for audio processing, though VSTI's as well sure, but just VSTs in general (for starters) or for other users AU and all of the various formats for that matter. If the main OS and Host app ran on 1 cpu and the plugins were then delegated to the other processors, much like Pro-Tools & other DSP hardware, the cpu load is spread out depending of course on the application etc.

Sure the latency and many other issues need to be resolved, but thats not my job. I shall be leaving that to the developers.

I want to be able to run some convolution plugins without problems among other things.

Thanks again for some of the bright ideas and thoughtful responses you all have chimed in with.

I'm not certain that is twisted. When you consider the deaths of coal miners nuclear power doesn't look all that dangerous does it?_________________The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy Bentham

Very interesting.
I want host apps to be optimized for such, namely for plugin use.
Specifically for audio processing, though VSTI's as well sure, but just VSTs in general (for starters) or for other users AU and all of the various formats for that matter. If the main OS and Host app ran on 1 cpu and the plugins were then delegated to the other processors, much like Pro-Tools & other DSP hardware, the cpu load is spread out depending of course on the application etc.

I don't know how all programs do it, but Ableton Live allows each track to run on a separate processor. So, all plugins that are on a single track, will be run on the same processor, so it aims to reduce the latency of VSTs that have to talk to each other. While those that don't (separate tracks) are threaded to either the same, or another, processor.

I am using the New Intel I7 processor core for my music studio...has all of the processing power that I need to run lots of music production software and Video production software. Four cores of monster power....
Also, I have 6 gig of memory....

However, that assumes that the gain in cache hits and more efficient memory management for two processors would be less than the over head of task management that is required to support multiple processors. I don't know if that's actually true or not.

I think everybody would take 6 over 2x3 (with overhead being what it is), I meant I'd take 6 over 4x3

Ah my favorite subject

I would always go for the 2x3 over the 6.

One thing I always hated about single core/single processor machines is one threads ability to basically hold the machine at ransom by using as much cpu as possible and not playing nice with the rest of the system.

Multi core processors are getting very efficient with the cache between the cores, granted with multiple processors this is still not there totally but companies like Intel are making great roads into fast cache sharing between processors using decent memory busses between processors, the new Xeon chips are already doing this.

Also as more developers start to understand how to program in a distributed manner and as the Operating Systems get better at thread scheduling based on memory access and shared data to allow proper load balancing of the system the small advantage of fast single core model will be removed.

I just wish programmers would all go through some form of embedded programming training. Reducing the bloat in software would go a LONG way to making the cache, and CPU power, a lot more efficient. Most likely far more so than the advances that modern cache architectures could attain themselves.

I just wish programmers would all go through some form of embedded programming training. Reducing the bloat in software would go a LONG way to making the cache, and CPU power, a lot more efficient. Most likely far more so than the advances that modern cache architectures could attain themselves.

Not to mention that that would make the applications perform better. I am baffled every time I see that half-second latency between key press and added character in MS Word.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum

Please support our site. If you click through and buy from our affiliate partners, we earn a small commission.